The problem with the bill is the definition of what constitutes "violence" to the writers of the bill.

With what I understand from reading other sites, even getting into a verbal argument with a Non-White would be considered "violence" if the Non-White or other protected party was offended by the language used. Protesting against a homosexual lifestyle and saying that it's morally wrong could be considered "advocating others to violence".

There's all kinds of different ways that the language could and will be twisted if this is passed.

Besides, even if this wasn't the case (I think that it probably is the case), why should one group of people be held up as who should be protected when the other group of people is not? I know what you're saying, you're asking how this would change things for us right now. The answer is that this probably wouldn't be as dramatic a change as some people are making it out to be. It would just be one more minor thing to worry about.

But it's one more link in a chain. It's just one more thing for people to worry about when speaking up about what they don't like. One more reason to avoid defending themselves if they're attacked by a protected group. And eventually if enough of this crap passes and society changes as a result, then the dramatic changes that people are worried about now and saying will happen as a result of this bill will eventually come to pass. They'll just do so an inch at a time instead of all at once.

About a month back, there was a thread where this guy in this forum recieved a disturbing the peace charge for calling some Black lady a "Negro" during a minor argument at a bank. She's trying to say that he called her a "******" (Even if he did, so what? It wasn't a nice thing to say, but in America sometimes frredom of speech means tolerating the fact that not everything out of everyones mouth will always be nice. I've been called things by Non-Whites, I didn't make a federal case out of it.).

My point is this, if some of us are getting misdemeanor charges now for calling someone a Negro, what will it be like after this bill passes and there's a law saying that they're a protected group? Will defending ourselves against criminal attack now be elevated into being a "hate crime" if the criminal is Black? Where does it stop?

My point is this, if some of us are getting misdemeanor charges now for calling someone a Negro, what will it be like after this bill passes and there's a law saying that they're a protected group? Will defending ourselves against criminal attack now be elevated into being a "hate crime" if the criminal is Black? Where does it stop?

There already exists a Federal "Hate Law." It is in the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 245.

The existing law, which has been in force since 1968, creates Federal jurisdiction when a crime is committed against someone because of their race or religion, and because the victim is participating in certain specified activities. These specified activities include being a student at a public school, or a patron in a place of public accomodation.

All this new legislation (H.R. 254) will do, is add "gender, sexual orientation, or disability" to the protected classes covered by the already existing law.

January 5, 2007
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILLTo enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007' or `David's Law'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem;
(2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive;
(3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem;
(4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--

(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment or participating in other commercial activity;

(5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;
(6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence;
(7) such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce;
(8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;
(9) although many local jurisdictions have attempted to respond to the challenges posed by such violence, the problem is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in scope to warrant Federal intervention to assist such jurisdictions; and
(10) many States have no laws addressing violence based on the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability, of the victim, while other States have laws that provide only limited protection.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--

`(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or
`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--

(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and
(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.

SEC. 6. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Make Grants- The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by this Act).

The existing law, which has been in force since 1968, creates Federal jurisdiction when a crime is committed against someone because of their race or religion, and because the victim is participating in certain specified activities. These specified activities include being a student at a public school, or a patron in a place of public accomodation.

All this new legislation (H.R. 254) will do, is add "gender, sexual orientation, or disability" to the protected classes covered by the already existing law.

The existing law, which has been in force since 1968, creates Federal jurisdiction when a crime is committed against someone because of their race or religion, and because the victim is participating in certain specified activities. These specified activities include being a student at a public school, or a patron in a place of public accomodation.

All this new legislation (H.R. 254) will do, is add "gender, sexual orientation, or disability" to the protected classes covered by the already existing law.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Notwithstanding that, it's frustrating that misinformation is being oft repeated, here and elsewhere on the Internet, and that some people (who can't be bothered to read the text of the legislation for themselves) have taken off running with the notion that Stormfront will be criminalized under "David's Law."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayou Girl

Is having to wear glasses a "disability"?

Probably. So if you are engaging in interstate commerce and someone willfully injures you in the process of attempting to kidnap you, kill you, or perform aggravated sexual abuse on you, or merely attempts to injure you and uses fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, all because you wear glasses, or are perceived to wear glasses, that individual will risk being sentenced to ten years to life under Federal law.

The second it passes I know I will go stand in the middle of the main commons on campus with a megaphone and deny the holocaust and call for gas chambers for jews and anything else I can think of, in an over the top display of free speech, just to challenge them. We have too many outrageous minorities in this country for hate speech laws, they would have to arrest too many of their own.

Brandon

You do not have to wait for this law to pass since already you would be expelled from your school for doing the above under some sort of hostile school environment clause, as you would at most places of work.